Tony abbott has suggested that rather than taxing the miners twice, simply increase the royalties and get a similar result.

About time I say.

i conquere..[as in agree]

federally there needs to be a basic adjustement
a top up levey..

for those states
seeking to attract mining by having lower royalties

there/by putting more burden on its people..
with higher fees and charges..[upon those..who are allready loosing their assets...and services..being sold off too rapidly]

i hear canadanians actually get a share of the income
raised from royalties...thus feel if the people arnt getting the advantage...*leave it in the ground

ie why build the exploiters railways/ports
[or gas pipelines]..ie infastructure..
to loot and pilage from us all

there is the jobs jobs jobs issue as well
but the ab/origonals arnt getting the jobs

and just like the work done on their camps
[its done with fly in fly out..fly by nighters
charging us all double..the blighters and backbiters]

i note your unique spelling of sense

this set of many thought's...
like we got basic 'common'sense
upon which we base our world vieuws...

but also the cents
upon which we base our fiat 'money'system
[or rather USED to]

i note the removal of our cents
now their after our sixpences
[that somehow equaled 5 cents]
when they took the silver from our money]

noting that pennies used to be silver
then became big copper coins

then lighter copper coins
then smaller copper coins
then they became cents

and then they became too small
we had thieves take all of them away

now we got the same problem
as we got with our 5 cents
[noting the 10's/20's will soon follow]
their weight..[cost]..in nickle being at parity]

the thieves are still taking
*all our metals away
even to the point
of taking all our cents
as well as common sense

[or is that sense...of cents
by colluded absence..
or or just non-sence]

what do we get
for OUR minerals and metals

..pennies?

or just more capitalistic non-sense
werre we bailout those who set out to fail
or want to take it all

Dear Tony

While you are solving all the world's problems, please set up free adult literacy classes.

"sence"? SENSE

"conquere"? CONCUR

Ammonite
Nice to see you care.

I have never been a great speller however I am getting better.

But hey, at least even you knew what I meant.

As Wayne Swan pointed out, "If they increase their royalties and all of that increase then goes to the other states the people of WA are not better off."

I used to wonder if that would be the better route too rehctub but changed my mind.

Trouble with increasing royalties is the mining companies pay even if profits are lower or the investment is not as lucrative as originally forecast. The beauty of the super profits tax is that when the mining company investment pays off big, it pays off for the owners of the minerals as well. It is win-win.

Your grammar is not to flash either Rehctub. (lol)

Dear thinker2,

"Your grammar is not to flash either Rehctub.".

Your spelling is not 'too' flash either thinker2.

Lol

Some interesting points.

How I see it is that royalties should be set as a percentage of the 'sell price', hence, they increase as the prices fetched improves and decrease accordingly.

To tax so called 'super profits', where do you draw the line.

Banks are more profitable than mining companies, when one takes the 'risk v returns' in to account.

It is suggested that as many as 19 out of 20 mining projects fail. How many bank offices fail and, more importantly, how much risk are banks taking as they simply sign a lease, set up a branch and commemce making money from our money, not their's.

Some of the installers of the failed insulation scheme made super profits.

They bought a ute, a few tools and went on to make as much as $1,000,000 per year on their $20,000 investment.

Why is that not a super profit?

At the end of the day we own the minerals, so it is they who need to be sold at a higher price when times are good.

Agree with Pelican about super profits tax, particularly considering we do not own much of the mining industry and money goes O/S.

>>Agree with Pelican about super profits tax, particularly considering we do not own much of the mining industry and money goes O/S.

Even more reason to increase the royalties on our minerals.

We can't stop OS miniers from mining but we can charge a higher price for our goods.

Once again Abbott presents an idea that seems logical and appealing to the uninformed every-day Joe while being in reality a completely stupid approach.

While there are many large international companies making massive profits off Australian resources, their are also many smaller companies, many Australian, who aren't making much profit at all. Simply increasing the royalties punishes the smaller local miners more than the larger internationals.

Once again, Abbott goes with the populist approach. And it will probably work for him because too many Australians are so easily fooled with these simplistic ideas.

This all seems a bit mixed up to me. Income tax, corporation tax, GST, mining tax, Carbon dioxide tax and royalties are all handled by the federal government differently. Yet they are all interrelated.

Income tax is based upon personal earnings, corporation tax is based on earnings before tax (EBT), GST is a consumption tax collected by the states but distributed by the federal government, the proposed mining tax is a tax on only mining companies as an additional tax on yet to be defined extra profits, royalties are levied by states for their state owned mineral rights and a CO2 tax on emitters and miners is “money in circulation” rather like Euro funding.

The CO2 tax is the most difficult to deal with because once collected it is distributed on the “dispensation of favors” basis, in theory everyone benefits by being able to make a case for a bit of the action. The public are unlikely to ever know if the amount spent is equal to, less than or greater than the sum collected. This is one of the prime causes of Euro-money contamination.

Each form of revenue raising affects the ability of the other taxes to raise revenue. State royalties reduce corporation EBT and therefore reduce the taxable amount of corporation and mining tax.

Therefore, for our federal government to incrementally and arbitrarily introduce new taxes before the September tax summit or a redistribution of GST is economic lunacy.

It has to be noted that whilst others are talking about mining royalties, Lara Giddings has already increased it in Tasmania, smart lady

i must note the exclusion of 'fuel'
from the 1000...[alone...lol..]..who must be paying..the big new tax

is it only 800 now [ie big poluters]..who 'will pay'?

so the big poluting transport mining agri'culture'...
are asured their 'petro'/polution...lol...wont be taxed

its turning into a typical july ju-LIAR spin
what her next disaster?

how is the sacking of the WHOLE coal industry..
going to create 'jobs'

are they and the transport mobs
not going to KEEP ON RECIEVING..their 12 billion fuel subsidies
on top of not getting a tax on their petro polution

will gas and heating oil also be excluded
[watch..that will be taxed...yet the kero..
of the airline INdust-try..as 'fuel'...wont be taxated?

its getting more messy ju-liar
go clean up your room
and clean up your act

we had enough of the drooling greenies
and the dribbling privateers
keep nibbling

and where to get the others...now exluded
to keep the.."only 1000 will/must...may? pay"..lie going